This is one other reason why the subscription model isn’t necessarily the idea for a business. Most markets are composed of a variety of customers, and kludging them all into a “one size fits all” may be counterproductive. Microtransactions and “choose your payment plan” sorts of options for MMOs can widen the user base, which can be crucial if the game design requires a critical mass of players to actually be fun.
I can’t add too much to the article that I linked to, so I’m being lazy this weekend. Just go read what he has to say, and hopefully it will be obvious that once again, the game industry is behind the curve when it comes to business experience. Hordes of fanboys cite WoW as the epitome of success in the industry, but that success is not just a triumph of design and marketing, but also a lucky stroke of timing. Blizzard hit it big, and has warped the industry, but their success isn’t founded in ideal business practices.
The scary part is that they are leaving money on the table. WoW could be making even more money if they were smarter about how they ran the business model.
WoW has easily set this “15″ buck price point precedent.
But, the software is worth it also.
When we look at how you can have LOTRO or DDO for 9.99 if paid for 3 months, it makes you wonder why Turbine ALSO does not have a large audience.
The games are just not as good.
Then there are those who just will not give up that 15 buck price point, and then we have games like Tabula Rasa…closing due to being headstrong.
They could have easily tried to extend the game by offering another price point…but I still assume a big tax write off is their reasoning.
What do YOU think would be the way WoW could even make more?
And how could other companies gasin this market share?
That’s the point, Openedge1, “worth it” is a relative term. In my cost/benefit analysis, the game is absolutely NOT worth $15/month.
Comparing different games isn’t what I’m talking about here, either. (Though you’re right, they should have different price points because they are of different quality. But then, there’s the mindless perception that a game that sells for less than the price leader is somehow flawed. It’s a vicious chicken and egg negatively reinforced perception death spiral. The objective quality of the product is often ignored in the knee-jerk price analysis.)
No, the trick of market segmentation in this application is to capture the customers to whom the cost is too high, and to milk those who would pay more for the same thing. That’s the point of “premiere” or Collector’s Edition versions of products. On the flipside, there are things like Photoshop Elements; stripped down versions of the same core product.
With WoW specifically, they are already capturing a lower price point in China because of how their system works. Those players pay substantially less per month than Western players. They apparently also have a hard cap on number of hours per month they can play, so the “service” actually is a bit different. Blizzard is already exploring “premium content” via their card game, paid server transfers, and now the gender swapping machine.
That’s how you segment the Western Market and grab those other players. You offer perks to those willing to pay more (without killing game balance, of course). You make a lower price point for a limited account. Whether it’s limited in privileges like the free trial (or in some other way), or it’s limited by a hard cap in time per month like the Chinese, it doesn’t really matter. In fact, there’s probably a market for both.
It could even be as simple as charging a more reasonable $5/month for a strictly Old World (Vanilla) WoW account, $10/month for an account with TBC, and the full $15 for someone with the full suite. You could also sell a “half” game, charging $3/5/7/month for Alliance only, or Horde only. Disciples 2 did a bit of that, selling campaigns for different races in the game. Starcraft 2 is slated to sell three different pieces of the game, again by race. Bioware’s SWTOR could do that by selling Dark Side and Light Side versions of the game, and LOTRO sells “chapters” (but still charges a sub fee on top). Some of that gets the perception of a cash grab, certainly, but again, one size does not fit all.
If you give customers more choices, more customers have good reason to choose your product.
Again, the point is that there are options, and Blizzard isn’t exploring them. As long as the products/services are sufficiently differentiated, the perception of “value” can be on a sliding scale that allows for more people to buy into the system, but at price points that they are comfortable with.
I agree. But, guess what…people are stupid enough to pay for the experience.
WoW keeps people enthralled, and it is cheap entertainment.
Until another game comes along that can compete, then we will continue to have this value applied to all games.
Hopefully SWTOR DOES try a different price point or model, then everything could change (i.e: the only other game that has a chance to compete against WoW, and offer a new pricing scheme could make it a major success…)
Enthralled with WoW? Cute, Open.
Your comment does make me wonder if Blizzard is just sitting on some segmentation contingency plans for when some other game does become a mild threat. Sort of a “Death Star around the planet’s curve” thing.
Indeed, with any luck, SWTOR does try something new and well-plotted. The genre needs new business models as much as it needs new styles of play.
I have always wondered if the only explanation for the inexcusable lack of player housing in WoW is that they are holding onto it to crush the first real threat to their market dominance.
As for the pricing: the subscription system makes no sense at all. It is an absolute failure to effectively price your customers. The biggest and easiest proof of this is the ~$1 billion market for WoW gold/items/accounts. The fact that people are willing to spend that kind of money for such things is evidence that people are quite excited about the idea of forking out more than $15 to play WoW (or many other games).
And then there are folks like some of us here, for whome $15 is too much. But if the game were free, and you paid for extras, I would at least login occasionally to see what was going on. Maybe something would catch my eye and I’d go ahead and fork out some money. But in the meantime, I’d stay in touch with friends who would in turn also have more opportunities to talk me into playing more (and thus, being more likely to buy some kind of extra).
Daniel James, the CEO of Three Rings (Puzzle Pirates) has noted that even the stereotyped “free” player still adds to the community. He welcomes people with open arms, creating a place that people want to spend time. Eventually, they want to spend money as well, if you do it right.